Linkbar

Translate

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Salleh Said Keruak ‎ Sunday’s so-called ‘Save Malaysia’ gathering was anything but about saving Malaysia. And what or who, in the first place, are they trying to save Malaysia from? And how can ousting the Prime Minister unconstitutionally be considered saving Malaysia? To save Malaysia, the Constitution should be protected instead of violated like how they are proposing to oust the Prime Minister. They stand there on stage and attack the alleged lack of democracy in Malaysia. But what they failed to mention was that the very fact that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak allows more democracy in Malaysia is the reason they are able to organise such gatherings in which they use to attack the Prime Minister. The gathering of many partners who do not share the same aspirations and ideals shows that the ‘Save Malaysia’ alliance is doomed from the start. We have seen Gagasan Rakyat, Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah, Barisan Alternatif, Pakatan Rakyat, and now Pakatan Harapan. And so far all have failed while Pakatan Harapan is struggling to prove its viability. And the reason they have all failed is because, as the Malays would say, tidur satu bantal, mimpi lain-lain. All those in the ‘Save Malaysia’ alliance do not share the same ideals, doctrines, aspirations or objectives. They only want one thing -- to oust the government. And that is technically what would happen when you oust the Prime Minister. Beyond that they have not agreed on what to do. And they will never agree because each partner in that ‘Save Malaysia’ alliance has its own view as to who should take over as the new Prime Minister if their plan succeeds. And should the ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign include or exclude freeing Anwar Ibrahim from jail? Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail says yes but all the others say nothing. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad appears to have emerged as the new de facto Opposition Leader and head of the ‘Anti-Najib Campaign’ or ‘Save Malaysia Campaign’. And all the others appear to have given tacit approval to Mahathir’s leadership role by not nominating any other leader. Mahathir knows that the only way to oust Najib would be if Umno wants him to go. Mahathir himself admits that Najib cannot be ousted from the outside. Therefore Mahathir is hoping that this ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign will prove that it has the support of the rakyat and that this, in turn, would get the support of Umno. Instead, Umno is very angry with Mahathir and because of that Umno is united behind Najib. So Mahathir’s move has backfired badly and is working against him.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Salleh Said KeruakToday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and two others filed a suit against Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak for alleged ‘tort of misfeasance in public office’ and ‘tort of breach of fiduciaries in public office’, according to what their lawyer said.‘Misfeasance’ means an act that is legal but is performed improperly and describes a situation where an act by the defendant (in this case Najib), though legal, causes harm to the plaintiff (in this case Mahathir).A ‘fiduciary’, on the other hand, is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with another party or parties. In such a relationship the fiduciary is required to act at all times for the sole benefit and in the interest of the one rendering that trust.In 1999, Anwar Ibrahim sued Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for RM100 million. That same year he also sued The Sun for RM100 million as well. In 2008, Anwar sued Khairy Jamaluddin for RM100 million. In 2012, Anwar sued Nallakaruppan for RM100 million and in 2015 he sued NST and three others for RM70 million.These are but just a few of a long list of civil suits that eventually all went nowhere -- except for the Khalid Jafri Bakar Shah suit where Anwar was awarded only RM4.5 million nine years later and, even then, after the defendant had died. So, it is yet to be seen how long Mahathir’s suit is going to get locked up in court and what the outcome is going to be in the end.This is no doubt a very interesting case because now the onus is on Mahathir to prove guilt and no longer on Najib to prove his innocence. Mahathir will also have to convince the court that he has locus standi (which I am sure his lawyer would have looked into) and in what way he has suffered personal loss, injury or harm.The more important question is will Mahathir now have to stop talking since this case is now in court and if he continues to talk about the case what would happen? And what happens if the court rules against Mahathir? Would he accept that decision as final and lay this matter to rest?

23 March 2016‎Tun Mahathir's latest action demonstrates how desperate he is. He is clutching at straws. ‎‎Tun Mahathir tried to topple the Prime Minister through UMNO. He failed. Tun Mahathir tried a parliamentary vote of no confidence. He failed. ‎Now Tun Mahathir is trying to sue. His accusations are false, so he will fail yet again. ‎Tun Mahathir has run out of options. This action shows that he has no political channels left. ‎‎Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Salleh Said KeruakMinister of Communications and Multimedia

Monday, March 14, 2016

Salleh Said KeruakTun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's latest Blog posting, 'Sacking and Popularity', seems to have missed the point. Dr Mahathir no longer seems to be following the plot and his comments now lack coherency.Dr Mahathir is turning this into a popularity contest between him and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Is that what this is all about, a popularity contest?Malaysia does not practice a Referendum system, especially one conducted by an international opinion poll company. No country in the world does that, not even the UK or US.Should we now also ask that foreign polling company to take over from the SPR the job of managing Malaysia's next general election in 2018?Even if we do have a system of Referendum in Malaysia it should be the SPR that conducts it and not some foreign polling company. If not it would not be legally binding.Should Parliament now be asked to pass a new law to adopt the Referendum system and make it Constitutionally binding? What if Sabah and Sarawak, or maybe even Penang, decide to take advantage of this new law and hold a Refendum whether to leave Malaysia? And what if the majority vote to leave Malaysia? Will it be legally binding?Governments are not formed and Prime Ministers are not chosen based on popular votes. It is based on majority seats in Parliament. Any novice politician knows this. So I am surprised that Mahathir still thinks that popular votes decides who gets to form the government.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Salleh Said Keruak Yesterday, 58 individuals who claim to be representing the rakyat signed what they call a Citizens’ Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat. Amongst those 58 were also some retired politicians, police officers and government officers, plus some who call themselves civil society leaders. In truth, this event was all hype and nothing more. The so-called Citizens’ Declaration is merely a recycled document from the one done in 1998 and the second one done in 2008. No doubt they may say this a blueprint for reforms, but it is not really a blueprint or masterplan as it is a list of aspirations and desires. This Citizens’ Declaration is what they would like to see rather than a plan on how to achieve these aspirations. In other words, they offer us no solutions. Furthermore, these aspirations differ depending on who you talk to, with one person saying one thing and another saying the opposite. While they have attempted to make it look like yesterday’s event was a platform to seek reforms and change, in reality it was a union of all those opposed to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. And what they really wanted was to create the impression that the move to oust the Prime Minister is being backed by the majority of the rakyat. This, of course, is not true. The 58 individuals are not representative of 30 million Malaysians. It is not even representative of 15 million Malaysian voters. Yes, we do have Wakil Rakyat, almost 800 Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons to be exact. These are the legitimate representatives who were voted into office by the people during the general and state elections. What we saw yesterday was merely a movement to oust the Prime Minister. The so-called Citizens’ Declaration is the excuse they are hiding behind to justify what they are doing. They seem to forget that there is a mechanism to do something like that. And that mechanism is called general elections.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Salleh Said KeruakThose who attended the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) press conference today were the same voices who have been most vocal and who have been demanding Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's resignation since the last one year.It was basically a collection of misfits and a motley crew who are united by only one thing: their hatred for Najib.Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about removing Najib and then pushing for reforms. But Dr Mahathir was very careful about not going into details regarding what reforms he is talking about. He left it vague.The opposition's idea of reforms differ greatly from that of Dr Mahathir's. They are not united on the details. That alone ensures that this alliance is doomed from the start just like Pakatan Rakyat was.Let us first hear what their full agenda of reforms is before asking the rakyat for their support. As it stands now their one and only agenda is to oust Najib. After after that what?Dr Mahathir said the alliance is merely to oust Najib so that Malaysia can be saved. Saved from what? What he means is the 1MDB issue but he does not want to mention that because the matter has already been resolved and is no longer an issue. Even the RM2.6 billion matter has been resolved.They need to be honest and not take the rakyat for a ride. They realise that their move to oust Najib has failed and this is just a face saving exercise. It is a side-show to give an impression that the effort has not ended when in fact it ended months ago.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Salleh Said Keruak In this day and age, especially in the era of the borderless world due to the Internet, freedom of speech and the expressing of one’s opinion is almost taken for granted. What we sometimes forget, however, is that this must be treated as a privilege rather than an absolute right. And privileges, if abused, can sometimes be withdrawn. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Even in the west where the limits of freedom have been pushed beyond what we in the east can accept and consider as acceptable, they still do have laws that regulate matters concerning slander, defamation, degrading, racism, sexism, and so on. It is accepted that discourse and the exchanging of ideas and opinions are the foundation of advancement and learning. But that has to be done in a constructive, civil, and mature manner and with decorum and decency. Running someone down or the hurling of insults would be the opposite to all this. You would be considered uncouth to not observe proper rules of engagement. A problem arises when we hide behind freedom of speech and pretend that we merely seek to discuss and debate and then we disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Politics is all about perception so the war of perception to be able to win the hearts and minds of the people intensifies as political disagreements escalate. And this is when we adopt the Machiavellian doctrine of the end justifying the means by embarking on a campaign of lies and misinformation. We cannot claim the moral high ground and say that our cause is virtuous when we are neither noble or virtuous in our methods. The Internet is community owned so we need to be considerate to other Internet users when we do things. While freedom of speech may be considered a right, others also have the right to not suffer indignity and harassment due to the misuse of the Internet. I concur with our Prime Minister’s recent blogpost – that the Internet is a shared property owned collectively by all global citizens, and as such we have the responsibility not to misuse it. We must be able to differentiate between truths, half-truths, innuendoes, and lies and not regard everything as opinions that you are free to espouse.